Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Enemy post]

Or The Three Stooges without the Three Stooges.

It'd just be a bunch of stuffy rich people hiring normal handymen.

[Reelya]

Those are an ensemble act however, but also a little outside the domain of TV sitcoms we're talking about, since the Stooges were really a product of the early transition of Vaudeville acts from the stage to cinema.

The discussion point is more relevant to any show that's built around a preexisting celebrity. "Everyone Loves Raymond" would be the quintessential example of the last couple decades. You can't really get rid of Raymond. Compared that to e.g. I Love Lucy, and Lucy is the lynch-pin there, which is clear because of how often she was able to reboot that basic show with different co-stars / settings and only the character of "Lucy", clearly being the same basic character, being the constant. e.g. the "I Love Lucy" and "Here's Lucy" Lucys are effectively the exact same character.

[Culise]

On the other hand, it's actually a good example of how an ensemble act can survive losing one star.  You can spark some nice arguments in the right places with "Shemp or Curly," but the act survived no less than four different third stooges: Curly, Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe.  I didn't even recall the last two, but there they were.

[Max™]

Reelya, I'm angry at you for reminding me that Raymond hasn't been ran over by a train going 3 mph for half a day.


Speaking of recasting unlikeable moron main characters: when are they going to do something about the ratings on the trump show?

[Reelya]

Sorry, but "Everyone Loves Donald" was contracted to run another 6 years at this rate, but is up for contract renewal in 2020 at least, so we'll see.

Hope they pick someone who can run against Trump next time and don't get sucked back into the "anyone could beat Trump" mindset. That's more a human failing than a Democrat-specific one however: quickly forgetting the recent past in self-serving ways is the human condition.

I think Sanders was better for one main reason: he appealed to the Left, but he also appealed to the Libertarians, who tend to flip-flop between the left and right sides and see themselves as outside of the spectrum. You can win with Liberals+Libertarians, but not with just doubling-down on hardcore "big L" Liberal values, even with a more "respectable" center left candidate. You need to throw some carrots out for other people, too. And if you're not willing to make concessions that conservatives will like, then you need to find someone else to ally with, and that has to be the libertarian-minded people. But the big problem in this election cycle is that a lot of younger centrist types are being branded as alt-right no matter how tenuous their actual support for any "right wing" stuff is. This is openly driving a lot of younger voters away, but the argument is that they're "not needed". Good luck with that, honestly, since I don't want to see Trump re-elected as much as anyone, but I have a bad feeling there.

e.g. I'd argue that both sides in fact have a complex relationship with the "blue collar" masses, since both established sides of politics are run by people who are higher-educated and mix in limited circles which have a lot of group-think. e.g. just bouncing policy off your facebook friends and finding that they all agree it sounds good isn't a good indication of how those ideas will go down with other groups. This is why I like Jonothan Haidt's stuff on the matter of getting liberals and conservatives to talk to each other. He's more thoughtful and balanced that Peterson and less confrontational about it (Peterson being so confrontational in attitude is in fact hypocrisy, given what he claims other should be like: less confrontational and opinionated). By looking at Jonothan Haidt's stuff (and other thinkers like Steven Pinker have good suggestions too) you can see how the whole language system and worldview / thought process of conservatives vs liberals are completely different, self-contained and self-consistent systems. e.g. one of the common mistakes is thinking that the lexicon as used by liberals must mean the same thing when conservatives use the same word. They don't. They're separate fields effectively, who sometimes use the same word for different things, or different words for the same thing. It's a basic communication skill that many people seem to lack or be openly hostile to: to learn the other side's actual meanings of shared words, and not just hostile caricatures, actually "getting" what is intended or meant.

Trying to get through to conservatives on some point with argument is folly, futile, and hypocritical, if you're not willing to actually sit down and read the basis of conservative philosophy with an open mind. If you do actually read the basis for why they think what they think, rather than a caricature, then you get a much wiser idea of how to frame liberal policies in language and terms that conservatives can agree with.

[sluissa]

Sorry, but "Everyone Loves Donald" was contracted to run another 6 years at this rate, but is up for contract renewal in 2020 at least, so we'll see.

Hope they pick someone who can run against Trump next time and don't get sucked back into the "anyone could beat Trump" mindset. That's more a human failing than a Democrat-specific one however: quickly forgetting the recent past in self-serving ways is the human condition.

I think Sanders was better for one main reason: he appealed to the Left, but he also appealed to the Libertarians, who tend to flip-flop between the left and right sides and see themselves as outside of the spectrum. You can win with Liberals+Libertarians, but not with just doubling-down on hardcore "big L" Liberal values, because you don't have the numbers for that. You need to throw some carrots out for other people, too.

True Libertarians are a very small minority. There's a few who might fit your definition and take up the mantle when it means "We'll get to smoke pot." But they're not true libertarians. What you need is "Liberal values" without making it seem like you're forcing rules down peoples throat. "Liberal values" are far too often associated with a very large an unwieldy rulebook attached which doesn't sit well with people who just want to smoke pot.

[Reelya]

I was using libertarian in a fairly loose sense, not so much the hardcore card-carrying ones.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

e.g. Lots of people in the middle think things like the War of Drugs is stupid and that military intervention overseas is equally stupid. That's why Trump used the anti-war thing to his benefit in the election. Being against the War on Drugs doesn't necessarily mean people are wanting to smoke pot. You can make plenty of arguments against it, couching it variously in terms that either liberals or conservatives will agree with. The point here being: if you don't actually learn how conservatives think and talk, you could promote ideas they would agree with, but they'll be rubbed the wrong way because you emphasized things that they don't sympathize with. e.g. if you talk about how it's racist because they're targeting black people they'll just think "well those people shouldn't be taking drugs" (value = self-responsibility). Sure, racism is a valid reason to oppose the war on drugs, but it's also a dumb way to frame the main problem if you're trying to get conservatives to vote for it, because it rubs them the wrong way with their "self-responsibility" value.

Instead, you can re-frame it in ways that show how the "war on drugs" goes against the whole "self-responsibility" idea (which is a thread common to libertarians and conservatives). e.g. government overreach, controlling people's lives, the massive cost to the taxpayer and the failures of the program all become examples of how the government failing to respect people's self-responsibility have caused most of the mess we're in.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note here that the % of Conservatives hasn't budged by even 1% since 1992. The smartest thing to assume is the conservatives are a solid 35% and that they're not going anywhere, forget about that "wait for them to die off" stuff, because it won't ever happen at this rate.

Liberal is up from 17% to 26% since 1992, but still, you need to sway a much bigger chunk of the undecided that the Conservatives do, to even be in the running. So ... Liberals need to forget doubling-down on "Liberal Values" to the extent that Conservatives can get away with doubling-down on "Conservatives Values". It only works for the Conservatives since they have the numbers for that. This is why Democrats need alliances with centrist voters more than the Republicans do.

[Starver]

Not that it'll mean much to many here in the US thread, but after Kenneth Horne died unexpectedly, the ensemble of pretty much the same main 'family' of primary participants through both Beyond Our Ken and Round The Horne shows moved into Stop Messing About with Kenneth Williams promoted into front-man status (not that it survived that long, Williams being a talented star but not quite the anchoring rock that Horne had been).

So...  Rebrand "Rosanne" as "Dan", to revolve around John Goodman with some suitable (or suitably ridiculous¹) background plot reason fot Mom's absence?

(I'm glad I checked, I was going to suggest it was to be newly called "Tom" after Tom Arnold, getting mixed up between stage and back-stage relationships, showing that I probably am pretty much the last person (besides Roseanne herself) you should ask to solve the problem of what to do with such a show that can't keep its original headliner.)


¹ Accidentally got posted to Antarctica for the winter season?

[nenjin]

"We urge European states to ride out this shit storm for another year and a half rather than delivering the apocalyptic trade war Trump is gunning for."

I hate to say it, but it's a pretty effective position to have. Either you want the worst of what your politics implies, and that's a win, or you cow everyone else in to submission. Which is an even bigger win.

I hope the EU calls his bluff, because I really want to see how he and the rest of America reacts to the impact of a trade war domestically.

[smjjames]

I hope Mexico and Canada calls Trumps bluff as well as it'll have implications for what happens to NAFTA.

BTW, Mexico is having a Presidential election of their own next month and it looks like a left wing populist might become President. If you think sparks are flying now, just wait until theres a hard line President in the same vein of Trump.

[nenjin]

I hope Mexico and Canada calls Trumps bluff as well as it'll have implications for what happens to NAFTA.

BTW, Mexico is having a Presidential election of their own next month and it looks like a left wing populist might become President. If you think sparks are flying now, just wait until theres a hard line President in the same vein of Trump.

Can't wait.

On the Roseanne thing, apparently Joe Rogan spoke to her on the phone (they've been friends for a while.) And Roseanne told him that when she posted that stuff, she was drunk and on Ambien and was, in her own words, "crazy." She said she needs to get a grip on herself and adjust her meds.

It doesn't really change anything but at least it seems she legitimately realizes she fucked up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxV90u-xME

[McTraveller]

You'd think that public figures would know better than to participate on social media at all.

Especially in a world where there is no longer any due process - as soon as you are human and make one ill-advised remark, the entire internet draws and quarters you.  Yes there are instances where there are patterns of "ill-advised remarks" but that's a different issue - the point is that a single slip-up will pretty much cost you everything these days.

Also, I'm sad that so many people seem to want to see the US (or any nation for that matter) "get what they deserve" because of the ill-advised policies or stances of the leadership, when the general population has only a very indirect influence on those policies.

[nenjin]

That's the problem with being famous. You get addicted to thinking people need to hear what you have to say, even when you know it's trivial bullshit. Sometimes I think they literally can't help themselves.

Also, I'm sad that so many people seem to want to see the US (or any nation for that matter) "get what they deserve" because of the ill-advised policies or stances of the leadership, when the general population has only a very indirect influence on those policies.

The alternative would be.....? I'm an American and I'm spoiling for a comeuppence. And to say the American electorate didn't bring this on themselves is just flat out incorrect IMO. Is it the whole electorate? No. But we have to bear the sins of our countrymen.

[PTTG??]

Rosanne did not make one mistake and get discarded -- this has been coming a long, long time, and she's been given a lot of warnings.

And as for Trump and the USA, I used to care. I used to want to minimize the effect Trump would have on the US. But the majority of states wanted him, so you know what, they can live with him.

[smjjames]

Rosanne did not make one mistake and get discarded -- this has been coming a long, long time, and she's been given a lot of warnings.

And as for Trump and the USA, I used to care. I used to want to minimize the effect Trump would have on the US. But the majority of states wanted him, so you know what, they can live with him.

Majority of states perhaps, but majority of voters? no.